/lit/ - Literature

>>6725876
>>>>>>>>>>/out

Can we just stop this misappropriated quotes meme? Anyone with half a brain neuron can see that John Green would never be able to conjure up something that validly lavish

>>6725876
What a misogonistic shitlord, comparing proud liberated women to a breakfast cereal to be consumed by his patriarchal mandibles.

Green is okay when he remembers not to let his tumblr account off the leash.

In Paper Towns there's a part where the main character is recalling being bullied by some asshat who was trying to make him say "I'm a faggot" and the punchline of the whole scene is that the protagonist didn't want to call himself a faggot because that's not something to be embarrassed about.

>>6726084
DEEP
E
E
P

>>6726084
>that's not something to be embarrassed about.

To be fair, it's not.
Seems though like that'd be reason to say it without any fuss at all, but I can't really comment without having actually read it.

>>6725876
The memes here get worse every week

>>6725876
Whats wrong with dating a girl who has had prior sexual encounters?

>>6726167

Whats wrong with wanting a girl who has had few or none before ?

There is nothing inherently wrong with either, sluts just can't handle that some men want something that they can't give.

>>6726167
What's wrong with using a dirty plate?

Science points to sexual partners having effects on women and their children.

>finding out you at the 48th
>48!!!
>"cereal"
>hurr durr what bothers me is different standards

yes oh yes, so many people would praise a guy who had 48 cereals nobody would question his intentions if he courted a woman.

>>6726224
Starting a sentence with 'science points to' means absolutely fucking nothing. Way to contribute nothing in an effort to feel better about your ignorance. Woo.

>>6726224
messing up cause and effect friendo

>>6726230
this is a very badly written comment and you should be ashamed of yourself

>>6726243

Even still, sure promiscuous women are made promiscuous because they are bad, and are not made bad because they are promiscuous. What you ought to avoid stays the same.

This man's chief talent, the one he has nurtured and cultivated, is for self promotion. Getting his stupid name and face out there. Why is /lit/ even acknowledging this guy?

>>6726116
There's nothing embarrassing about being gay but the way it was written was so self-righteous and preachy. It's like if someone lectured and patronised you over a point that you were in agreement about.

Try not to suck any dick on the way to the parking lot!

>>6725876
why the fuck does that cracker always do the same face?
is he autistic or something?

>>6726313
trying to keep a straight face long enough to take the money and run.

>>6725876


No one wants to eat a sandwich some other guy has fucked already. Hence why virginity still matters.

>>6726167

the more partners she's had the more likely it is she has STDs, and will be promiscuous during your relationship

Slut Shaming is important.

>>6725876
He is right.

women will be women, this is why I promote the liberation of the female, This is why I promote open relationships, I think that those relationships have the same benefits to me with far less complications, so the yield is even better: more women available to me, with far less BS from their part on me, since they dump their whining on their BFs.

>>6725891
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmk4YHnegsE

>>6726453
Top comment: "Why can't everyone be like john green? The world would be amazing."

What would a world of John Green's be like?

>>6726167
It's reflection on their personality.

>>6726455
pretty mixed

>>6726433

literally a cuck.

>>6726167
Anon is going to be a wizard, so the idea of women who have had sex emasculates him. He sublimates this emasculation into disgust for women.

>>6726478
roastie detected

>>6726453
How long before John Green writes the next Ulysses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FPpwxHtXLU

>>6726453
>as you can tell from the grey, speckled walls behind me...
does john green not know what speckled means?

i'm imagining that all of the cuts between shots are him having to stop and explain why he's shouting at a camera to concerned patrons

>>6726488
I'm amazed he can ramble for so long, saying absolutely nothing.

>>6726167

This is always funny to read because you just know John's wife was some pure as snow virgin when he bagged her.

Why do you guys get so mad about this though? I know it's a terrible analogy which is dismissive and crude and a bit disturbing. But his actual argument is basically right. It isn't right to get hung up on what someone did in the past - especially if all they did was have fun and love another person. It is also kinda bullshit that women are held to a different - I know it's really a personal judgement but society will infect the way you look at it.

>>6726685

Oh boy! So if my girlfriend never cheats on me that means we'll be less likely to break up? Who fucking knew. There's not even a huge variation between 2 - 15 partners. Between 40 and 30%? Take away liars, religious nuts, people on their 5th marriage and rape victims and I bet it barely even makes much of a difference. Leave in only relatively rich middle class people that are of a similar age who have similar goals and you'd probably find it didn't matter how many people they'd fucked at all.

>>6726727
>Oh boy! So if my girlfriend never cheats on me that means we'll be less likely to break up?
not that guy but that graph is about marriages. as far as your statement, if your wife cheated on you it would not be considered a stable marriage and the statistic wouldn't be included in the data

>>6725876
what green misses is that people end sexual relationships for a reason. why, if you enjoyed the whole grain crunch, give it up one day? (let's assume you have complete control over said relationship) and decide to move on to fruit loops for the color? The point is that its NOT natural to LOVE MANY, to admire many, to be attracted to many, but people fucking build lives around their significant others. how many times are these break-ups ever truly mutual? the big point he's missing is that women, typically, like the idea of being "won" by some supreme effort. by the male proving himself, by displaying his attractive traits and other qualities, that make him "good enough". basically, men are seen as visual. females, can yes be attracted by the same (simple physical appearance/attractiveness) but this is ultimately acting like a salivating male in the opposite direction. its still a masculine behavior. they're held to a different standard because they sublimate certain female characteristics in the place of radical hedonism

>>6726754
sorry i meant to say its not UNNATURAL...(to love many etc.)

>>6726753

I doubt the definition of stable marriage took into account whether or not a person had cheated on you. Although that number wouldn't be included in the 0 box.

>>6726716
You can't genuinely love 10000 people, and you can't have 10000 partners if you have self control and value, so the numbers and the motivations matter for that. You still have to do a case by case analysis though. And this goes both for men and women, those who apply this only to women are hypocrites.

I'm atheist but I prefer to date religious girls who have some self-respect and value motherhood and being a good wife.

>>6726771

It's true they may not have loved all their former lovers or even liked them or even been sober. But, I suspect many people on 4chan that post this stuff are trying to justify their jealously that their partner has had an former lovers rather than making a valid point that you need to sensibly assess whether this person has a healthy attitude to intimacy or not.

>>6726778
>mfw that woman will never be dirty enough to instruct you in detail how to eat her out so she orgasms. and so never will

>yfw that's not even dirty, but she believes it is because she's a brainwashed mennonite

>>6726803
do not live for sex and even less for women

>>6726778
>tfw she's actually thinking about bbc

>>6726771
>And this goes both for men and women, those who apply this only to women are hypocrites.
if anything, from their lack of love towards men, women are more able to handle many partners, contrary to all the betas who can't live without being loved

>>6726803

>eating out a shy and blushing traditional girl
>she squirms in ecstasy and uses the lord's name in vain

>mfw

>>6726819
>mfw this anon is always thinking about bbc
Get the fuck out cuck

>>6726716
It makes betas feel inferior if their girlfriend once banged a chad.

>>6726771
MUH SLIPPERY SLOPE LOGIC